Famed NASA Astronaut almost, kind of, (not really) says Extraterrestrials are here!

Originally posted by Unknown Soldier
Also is it me or does Jones appear to have some extra chromosomes? Down Syndrome

Maybe we should go back to sending monkeys in to space, then maybe we could get to the bottom of this.

It's just you, though sadly a typical example of "Believer" response when the falsifications they adhere to begin to fall apart.

It's this kind of stuff that demeans ATS and its users.

Shame on you, Unknown Soldier.

Thanx Jim for that. Truly sad it's taken so long for these people to actually address the issue though and even now it's second hand via a person who demonstrably uses classic deception techniques to avoid talking about the actual truly strange stuff astronauts see out there.

The conclusion is still, sadly, that if it takes this sort of hassle for someone to actually speak about the ice particles, no-one is going to hold out much hope we are going to hear, from the horse's mouth, about the stuff that is still very much unresolved.

You can dress it up as much as you like and call everyone under the sun *weak minded*. in the end, you are talking on behalf of an organisation that has been proved to be *economical with the truth* time and time again. If have to say, till i read your posts on here I didn't truly understand why NASA is known world wide amongst the press as "Never a straight answer". I can assure you i fully understand that epithet now and it is truly well deserved..

Originally posted by JimOberg
All human striving is subject to error, and I wrote this report about ten years ago -- but as I recall I had obtained a time-tagged copy of the video, and verified the time's accuracy by comparing sunrise time to the air-to-ground comments on sunrise.

are you justifying throwing in your guesstimates as facts just for the sole purpose of arriving at your preconceived conclusions?

It would seem that this thread has come down to the same level many of these threads do. Skeptics vs. Believers. I realize that I am a noob here at ATS. But I'm not a noob to this topic, or the heated mudslinging that goes with it. But if you will permit, I'd like to interject a bit of reason into the ring. In many years of research into this and other areas, I have found that intuition, eyesight, and perspective are three very important tools in the search for truth. Notice I did not say facts. We live in a world where facts are subjective, and only meaningful in the sense that they can help lead you to a truth that is personally acceptable. In the video clips, if you see intelligent movement, and your gut agrees with you, then perspective is the next step. I cannot stress the importance of perspective strongly enough. Those who accept these videos as legitimate evidence, and therefore a step in the direction of "proof" (A word that is itself highly subjective, just ask any courtroom attorney), should at this point look critically and analytically at the other sides arguments. What do I mean by that? True skeptics, paid skeptics, outright shills, and so called "insiders", can lead you to the most interesting and conclusive evidence you will ever find in your favor, if you will allow yourself to see things from different angles. Be prepared though. This method of research will take you places you never even considered to be a part of what you were looking for. If it weren't for this group of folks, I would probably still be a hardcore skeptic myself. For it is they, and not the believers who changed my mind. In short, take good care of the skeptics among you. They are an invaluable source of information, if you'll look at what you believe from another vantage point. And they also serve as a reality check that is sometimes needed.

reply to post by JimOberg

The crewman speaking is Mario Runco

since i mentioned in my post his name and identified the mission what makes you think i didn't know who it was ?

The lights moving by in the background are either isolated lights on the ground or stars, I think likely the latter though. I do not remember for sure.

so it's true Mario has no idea what that object was and is only making guesses. thanks for the confirmation

reply to post by easynow


No, he says they are either stars or lights on the ground. There's no "guess" there, it's one or the other, he just doesn't remember which of the two. That certainly does not confirm anything other than it was either stars or lights on the ground.

Springer...

Originally posted by FireMoon
You can dress it up as much as you like and call everyone under the sun *weak minded*. in the end, you are talking on behalf of an organisation that has been proved to be *economical with the truth* time and time again. If have to say, till i read your posts on here I didn't truly understand why NASA is known world wide amongst the press as "Never a straight answer". I can assure you i fully understand that epithet now and it is truly well deserved..

And you can resort to ad hominems and 'guilt by false associations' all you like to bolster your own prejudices, but it only advertises how little you know about the corpus of my work digging out space secrets of organizations around the world -- including NASA. As you could have found out, in 1997 I blew the whistle on NASA safety laxness before a congressional committee and left my Houston job shortly thereafter, to become a thorn in the groin of the Goldin administration. I won press awards for digging out the hidden management flaws behind the later Mars robot disasters, and had the honor of being the only journalist ever officially called 'nutty' in a NASA press release. I explicitly warned that without sharp reforms, NASA was on the path to killing another shuttle crew -- and when they did so, NBC News hired me to dig out the dirty secrets of the disaster (and the way the crew really died).

That you should even propose that I am somehow acting on the behalf of NASA, now or ever, or for any other secret agenda at variance with my documented career of digging out and telling about space secrets, your even more reality-challenged than I first thought.

There's still plenty of work to do and it needs dedication and persistence. Wild goose chases like the ones you're on waste energy and discredit other outside investigators. Get your head on straight and your act together and make a real contribution to the solution -- as I know you can -- rather than adding to the garble, noise, and camouflage for secrets as yet undocumented.

An example: the USSR used 'flying saucers' as a cover story for public witnessing of missile tests and satellite launches, to protect space secrets including violating international arms treaties. Those experts who insisted that the UFO explanation of those events was legitimate were dupes and tools of the Moscow coverup, and many ufologists still unquestionably serve the old Soviet coverup long after the collapse of the USSR itself. Their ironic loyalty is almost touching -- but pathetic.

Sort of a "Luke, I am your father" speech, I know, I know -- but also, space reality and not science fiction.

reply to post by Springer



hey Springer thanks for the reply,

perhaps i should have been more clear about my "confirmation" comment. i was only implying it was confirmation that Mario doesn't know whether it was a Star or a light on the ground not that it was an Alien spaceship.

reply to post by easynow


You are most welcome.

But...

I'll have to beg to differ once again, based on his email, he asserts he does know it was either ground lights or stars. The only issue is he can't recall which one.

I can appreciate that and believe it because if it were truly anomalous I believe he would have remembered it as such and would be stating it in that email.

There is no shortage of funding, fun get aways, book deals and speaker fees for Astronauts who have come forward to discuss the anomalies they did see.

Springer...

reply to post by JimOberg

That you should even propose that I am somehow acting on the behalf of NASA, now or ever, or for any other secret agenda at variance with my documented career of digging out and telling about space secrets, your even more reality-challenged than I first thought.

anything on 'anomalous observations' in your assault on nasa, whilst digging said 'space secrets'...

John F. Kennedy Space Center
NASA Management Instruction KMI 8610.4,
"Processing Reports of Sightings of Space Vehicle Fragments,"


John F. Kennedy Space Center
NASA Management Instruction KMI 8610.4,
"Processing Reports of Sightings of Space Vehicle Fragments,"

13-April-1997 - This interesting document has been verified by our obtaining it under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act.

The obvious purpose of this Instruction was to facilitate recovery of items earthly space hardware for, we believe, two main purposes: (1) to assess the effects of launch, exposure to space environments, and re-entry upon items of American space hardware, and (2) to wring any and all possible information (intelligence) from items of foreign space hardware. Note however, that the Instruction does require reporting of "unidentified flying objects."

The 1968 version of this Instruction directly mentions "Unidentified Flying Objects." It is a fact of UFOlogy that a certain percentage of UFO reports are sightings of "space junk" burning from friction heating as they return from space through the Earth's atmosphere. This being so, it seems natural that "UFOs" would be included in the information to be collected.

It is also a fact that their remains a core of UFO reports which defy explanation even after taking into account all known natural and man made phenomena. This being so, a certain number of such 'core' UFO reports no doubt were received by NASA through the reporting system set up under NASA Management Instruction KMI 8610.4, "Processing Reports of Sightings of Space Vehicle Fragments." The inability of NASA to locate the log of sightings specified by this instruction may or may not be significant in respect to UFO. Efforts to obtain copies of this log will continue.

www.cufon.org...

reply to post by JimOberg

Originally posted by JimOberg
And you can resort to ad hominems and 'guilt by false associations' all you like to bolster your own prejudices, but it only advertises how little you know about the corpus of my work digging out space secrets of organizations around the world -- including NASA. As you could have found out, in 1997 I blew the whistle on NASA safety laxness before a congressional committee and left my Houston job shortly thereafter, to become a thorn in the groin of the Goldin administration.

like 'some' of the items mentioned herewith?

Review of Aviation Incident Databases for UAP data

The FAA, the NTSB and NASA maintain aviation safety related incident databases. A keyword search of the FAA Incident/Accident Database and the NTSB Near Mid-Air Collision database revealed many incidents using keywords words like "unidentified aircraft" or "unidentified object".

Even more incidents are evident when one searches the NASA administrated Aviation Safety Reporting System Database, a voluntary, confidential database. It employs a rigorous identification system to validate the credentials of the reporter while protecting his/her identity from employers and the FAA. This database contains over 332 thousand incident reports. Below are the results of a keyword search conducted by Dr. Richard F. Haines in 2000 using phrases that may mask a UAP encounter and the number of cases that carry those descriptions:

"Near miss, unknown aircraft, unidentified object" 5,053 cases

"Near miss, unknown aircraft, unknown object & Primary problem area = flight crea humar factors"
(This category can refer to difficulties caused by control inputs made by the Crew to avoid collision.) 973

"In-flight encounter/other & primary problem area+ aircraft and their subsystems"
(This can refer to transient or permanent component or system failures that are common effects of close encounters with UAP) 125

"Unidentified object" 9

"Unidentified traffic" 3

"UFO" 1

"Flying Saucer, flying disk" 0

"Unidentified Aerial Phenomena" 0

www.narcap.org...

reply to post by JimOberg

Originally posted by JimOberg
Sort of a "Luke, I am your father" speech, I know, I know -- but also, space reality and not science fiction.

exactly...

What about UFOs?

There is an expression that engineers use: "signal to noise ratio." It refers to the difficulty of getting the real signal, say a voice over the telephone, to stand out and be heard above all the noise and clutter that is also on the line. On the subject of UFOs the signal to noise ratio is so abysmal, that it does no good to listen.

That whole subject is really irrelevant to our own human quest to travel to space. If we humans are going to figure out how to build space vehicles, then WE have to build our own space vehicles. It doesn't matter if it has or has not been done by someone else.

Its been suggested that we might have something to learn by studying UFO stories. I disagree. First there is this signal to noise ratio problem. Even if the stories are correct, they are only as useful as science fiction. Science fiction can be useful to give you some mental picture to get you started thinking about the real issues, but it is no more useful than that. Even if UFOs were completely real, which is doubtful, and even if I had a film of one in front of me, it wouldn't be of much help.

For example, if someone in the previous century saw a film of a 747 flying past, it would not tell them how to build a jet engine, what fuel to use, or what materials to make it out of. Yes, the wings are a clue, but just that, a clue. To do real work, to really determine how to build the next generations of vehicles, we need our own information. There are plenty of possibilities for credible approaches emerging from our own scientific literature. It would be a waste of our limited time to go chasing down mere hearsay.

www.nasa.gov...

Jim, the moment i see the words ad hominems I know i am talking to a someone who is trying to appear a lot more literary than they truly are. You worked in the military , I was paid to interview and asses people for 4 years before i moved to my present occupation. In other words I have an eagle eye for people who are indulging in deception tactics..

There's no disgrace in that, you have been hung out on here by NASA without training, without support and sooner or later you were bound to be found out.

I have been as polite as i possibly could be and given you due respect for answering the questions you have with your experienced eye. However, i also note you are very quick to lose your cool and resort to childish name calling and then you act all offended when someone points out your shortcomings.

Your complete passive acceptance that the American Government and all it's departments have lied and lied again about UFOs is all anyone needs to know. Those on here who don't believe they exist don't care those agencies have lied about them and are happy to tow your line.

You should also remember, cos you seem to have a habit of forgetting it, America does not = the world. You have quite blatantly avoided answering why it is the Russians seem to see these things but your people don't, aside from citing one fake translation when there are umpteen documentaries with uniformed Russian officers talking, quite openly and candidly, about the subject. Your avoidance of this issue is a classic deception tactic and maybe you are just so damn naive as a person you genuinely don't understand that, i suspect that might actually be it.

Look I'm partly on your side I'd like to be on NASA's side even more. I have no problem seeing how NASA must have viewed projects like the SR71 through gritted teeth when those billions wasted on a CIA dick waving project could have been spent by NASA on genuine exploration and still have bunged enough spy satellites up there to do the work the SR71 does.

Look I'm a Brit, you'll remember us we taught you all about "embedded journalists" in the wake of the Falklands tiff. I live under a government that are absolute masters of talking for hours and never actually saying anything and have been for decades. You live in a country that still pays lip service to some sort of concept of *freedom*,a country that has learned to stick an innocent aunt sally out there to deflect the *difficult* stuff on others behalf.

You are NASAs aunt sally. The truth is you aren't lying much of the time, you simply don;t know, but you can;t actually say that because that in itself plays into the hands of the more extreme conspiracy theorists. it's a tough life innit Jim?

Were you wiser in the ways of the world, rather than having spent the whole of it in a tiny cosseted microcosm of it, you'd actually understand that a bit more. See, I'm a nobody and anyway, given my profession, I am expected to be * a bit weird and out there*,. No-one save those predisposed to my way of thinking is really ever going to take me seriously. That means, when i meet people in positions who do know more than they let on in public, they relax. They tell me things knowing full well they are totally safe behind a nicely constructed wall of total plausible denial.

You however, because of your position might just be taken seriously, so they don;t tell you a thing cos people who might actually change their mind might listen to you. The upshot being, I know stuff about UFOs you don;t but i also know it would be totally pointless to go public with it and what's more it would mean an end to my "insider" tips.

All i can do is call you out when i see you disappearing down one of your rabbit holes and try to push people to at least ask questions and demand the answers, in the hope enough of us doing it, will force a more open attitude to the subject from the PTB. The truth is, many of your own kind are sick of keeping quiet about it all and will go on spilling the odd fact at dinner parties to people they feel are interested and the subject will not simply go away as your paymasters wish it would. .

reply to post by JimOberg


I must ask you if you have any way to back up your claims? Again I see you throwing out opinions and trying to make them sound factual. So russian ufologists have no clue as to what they are doing? Again I ask can you back that claim up with any evidence? If so please post it and if not please quit trying to demean people and acting as though they have no clue what they are talking about. I would go as far to say that there are those who know more than you do about this subject. Please just backup your claims when you make those statements about other people.

Again show something other than what you have wrote.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by The Shrike
Edit: I just found at YouTube the short footage of that anomalous object hauling over the earth and videographed by an astronaut from a shuttle. The footage starts out dark but the astronaut is trying to find the anomalous object, zooms into the darkness and finds it and then tracks it. Go on watch the footage and tell us the astronaut is tracking a hauling ice particle that had to be found with extreme zoom! Very clear at :44 The gauntlet has been thrown.

This is the posting that consists mainly of STS-75 images? Just looked at it -- would be glad to check out the lighting and vehicle activity context, please provide me the day/time of the video.

Uh, you won't give it to me? You don't know it? Gee, what a tricky guy you are...

We DID have that data for the STS-80 video, as you've seen in the report, so we WERE able to reconstruct the illumination conditions. You do agree that the STS-80 context was correctly reconstructed, don't you?

If not -- why should I keep doing it again, except as a trick by you to waste my time.

Comment on what you see in the video not the extraneous data that ain’t worth a hill of beans! You see an object that is NOT a damn ice particle or debris or the result of a water dump or some other kind of dump hauling over the surface of earth. It draws the attention of an astronaut who makes attempts to find it in the darkness until he/she locks in on it and follows it for a distance. Comment on that sequence!

No one is wasting your time. It's the other way around. You're always asking for data that no one has unless they know where in NASAdom to possibly look fot it IF it was available to the average Joe. You're closer to NASA sources than possibly anyone on any forum in the world and it should be as easy as 1-2-3 for you to find it.

Daytime, nightime, who cares? You pulled this on STS-48!

What does the video show to you? What do you see? What do you think about what you are seeing as you watch the video? Almost all to a man/woman on this and any other forum would say that the astronaut manning the camera is videographing a classic UFO.

And, BTW, you keep mentioning Story Musgrave as an astronaut who doesn't admit that he has been surprised by videos that have been shown to him of space objects and over on Unexplained Mysteries I posted his comments after watching the STS-80 video shown to him and he does say he is baffled (he didn't use that word but the one he did means the same, semantics!) at the materializing UFO. You, very choosily, do not include his pro-unknown-object(s) comments. Same ol', same ol'.

Originally posted by FireMoon
Thanx Jim for that. Truly sad it's taken so long for these people to actually address the issue though and even now it's second hand via a person who demonstrably uses classic deception techniques to avoid talking about the actual truly strange stuff astronauts see out there.

The conclusion is still, sadly, that if it takes this sort of hassle for someone to actually speak about the ice particles, no-one is going to hold out much hope we are going to hear, from the horse's mouth, about the stuff that is still very much unresolved.

You can dress it up as much as you like and call everyone under the sun *weak minded*. in the end, you are talking on behalf of an organisation that has been proved to be *economical with the truth* time and time again. If have to say, till i read your posts on here I didn't truly understand why NASA is known world wide amongst the press as "Never a straight answer". I can assure you i fully understand that epithet now and it is truly well deserved..

edit on 4-11-2010 by FireMoon because: spelling

I have a problem understanding your intent but it sounds to me like you are criticizing the mindless suggestions by some that what is being videographed by NASA space cameras, manned and unmanned, are only ice particles, debris, etc.

I have on my UFO video tapes made off cable TV many examples of ice particles coming off rising rockets, coming off space vehicles, water dumps, debris, etc. What is shown as the aforementioned does not resemble what we UFO buffs accept as unknowns, or UFOs. Cameras do not need to zoom in on nearby to the shuttle ice particles, debris, etc. When you see the result of a zoom, which is the nearby shuttle bay edges go from out of focus to focus, the camera had to be trained on a far away object that because of its behavior caught the attention of someone who thought they'd like to get a closer view.

When you see these "alleged" ice particles materialize from the cloud cover over earth and speed away and join up with other "alleged" ice particles, or when you see these "alleged" ice particles conglomerate, or form patterns, then you know that whoever calls them ice particles or debris or whatever that they are full of feces.

Originally posted by Klassified
It would seem that this thread has come down to the same level many of these threads do. Skeptics vs. Believers. I realize that I am a noob here at ATS. But I'm not a noob to this topic, or the heated mudslinging that goes with it. But if you will permit, I'd like to interject a bit of reason into the ring. In many years of research into this and other areas, I have found that intuition, eyesight, and perspective are three very important tools in the search for truth. Notice I did not say facts. We live in a world where facts are subjective, and only meaningful in the sense that they can help lead you to a truth that is personally acceptable. In the video clips, if you see intelligent movement, and your gut agrees with you, then perspective is the next step. I cannot stress the importance of perspective strongly enough. Those who accept these videos as legitimate evidence, and therefore a step in the direction of "proof" (A word that is itself highly subjective, just ask any courtroom attorney), should at this point look critically and analytically at the other sides arguments. What do I mean by that? True skeptics, paid skeptics, outright shills, and so called "insiders", can lead you to the most interesting and conclusive evidence you will ever find in your favor, if you will allow yourself to see things from different angles. Be prepared though. This method of research will take you places you never even considered to be a part of what you were looking for. If it weren't for this group of folks, I would probably still be a hardcore skeptic myself. For it is they, and not the believers who changed my mind. In short, take good care of the skeptics among you. They are an invaluable source of information, if you'll look at what you believe from another vantage point. And they also serve as a reality check that is sometimes needed.

I'm a natural skeptic and I use logic, reason, and common sense. Once you learn you use that knowledge to guide you in making decisions. Intuition, eyesight, and perspective are tools and they have to be used along with logic, reason, and common sense.

When I see something (a video for example) and what I see triggers a certain conclusion using the above tools, then one has to take umbrage at those who offer explanations that run counter to your conclusion. IF the explanation offered by someone else makes more sense than your conclusion, it should be easy to see and agree with.

But, in this case, when someone who sounds as if they have superior data and not just the tools I mentioned says that what we see in a lot of NASA space videos is or are ice particles and you're familiar with ice particles, then one has to tell the offender off. For whatever reason they try to make you think you're dumb beyond words is just not acceptable.

Originally posted by Springer
reply to post by easynow

 

No, he says they are either stars or lights on the ground. There's no "guess" there, it's one or the other, he just doesn't remember which of the two. That certainly does not confirm anything other than it was either stars or lights on the ground.

Springer...

edit on 11-4-2010 by Springer because: spelling

Just a minute here. An astronaut in space can't tell the difference between a star in space or lights on the ground? Wouldn't said lights on the ground be on planet earth? Can you see stars superimposed on planet earth? Rubbish!

reply to post by FireMoon

i thought you was a sound engineer?. at least thats what you told us on another thread?.

Originally posted by JimOberg

Originally posted by FireMoon
You can dress it up as much as you like and call everyone under the sun *weak minded*. in the end, you are talking on behalf of an organisation that has been proved to be *economical with the truth* time and time again. If have to say, till i read your posts on here I didn't truly understand why NASA is known world wide amongst the press as "Never a straight answer". I can assure you i fully understand that epithet now and it is truly well deserved..

(snip)
An example: the USSR used 'flying saucers' as a cover story for public witnessing of missile tests and satellite launches, to protect space secrets including violating international arms treaties. Those experts who insisted that the UFO explanation of those events was legitimate were dupes and tools of the Moscow coverup, and many ufologists still unquestionably serve the old Soviet coverup long after the collapse of the USSR itself. Their ironic loyalty is almost touching -- but pathetic.
(snip)

An example: the USA used 'flying saucers' as a cover story for public finding of balloon debris resulting from spying equipment used to spy on suspected Russian nuclear tests and it became known as THE ROSWELL CRASH!

They did it and we did it. In America it worked brilliantly.